A Top Banana Split?
Is Labor Headed for Splitsville? was the title of a Business
Week article about the Las Vegas gathering of a dissident faction in the
AFL-CIO last week. The top dogs in the SEIU, Teamsters, UFCW, UNITE-HERE, and
the Laborers had hoped they would have won enough support to announce a
challenge to John Sweeney’s reelection as president at the federation’s
convention in July. Clearly they don’t have that and are unlikely to pick up
enough additional backing. This has renewed implied threats of split by these
unions, representing about forty percent of AFL-CIO members. If they go they can
count on being joined by the Carpenters, who bolted the federation a few years
ago. This would make their camp nearly as strong as the remnants of the "house
of labor."

Historically,
there have been two major splits from the AFL. In 1905 the Industrial Workers of
the World (IWW) was launched because of widespread dissatisfaction with the
conservative, class collaborationist policies of the AFL craft unions. The IWW
took the crafts on by organizing on an industrial basis, winning, at least on a
temporary basis, some impressive initial victories in textile, wood and paper,
Great Lakes ports, and among farm labor. They also fought significant battles
for free speech and used the arts to make an indelible imprint on working class
culture. But a combination of factional divisions among socialist and
syndicalist currents, a weak structure incapable of consolidating organizing and
strike victories, and–above all--relentless persecution by the government and
vigilantes, ultimately reduced them to a tiny current.

The second
split had a much greater impact–the Committee (later to become Congress) of
Industrial Organizations (CIO), launched in 1935. Like today, the AFL at the
time was floundering and the leadership seemed incapable of responding to the
challenges of the times. Unlike today, there were the beginnings of important
local fights, under radical leadership, winning victories here and there. Some
of the more far-sighted AFL leaders, such as John L Lewis of the Mine Workers,
saw the need to promote–and control–these promising developments. The CIO, as a
federation independent of, and partially in competition with the AFL, had great
success in organizing mass production industries such as auto, steel,
electrical, rubber, chemical, and meat packing, where the conservative craft
unions had been unable or uninterested in making gains. Twenty years later,
after the expansion of union contracts and the waning of radical influence, the
rival federations merged into the present AFL-CIO.

In both of
these examples the "splitters" had compelling arguments for striking out on
their own, for testing in struggle fundamentally different strategies. One
suffered an honorable defeat in battle. The other won huge gains for the working
class before succumbing to a bureaucratized reunification with their former
adversaries.

Today’s
dissidents threatening split have not the slightest resemblance to these two
prior movements. They are not based on an upsurge of worker struggles being
ignored by the federation leadership. And they certainly are not radicals, nor
do they have much sympathy for radicalism of any kind. They in fact have little
difference with the other camp in regards to basic principles or strategy.

While offering
pabulum about great social issues indistinguishable from the Sweeney wing they
focus on bureaucratic preoccupation with dues and structure. Their pressure
pushed Sweeney into making ill-advised cuts in federation staff–but they demand
much more.

This week the
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists is also meeting in Las Vegas. They are
justifiably concerned about the impact of the rival business plans of the two
warring factions will have on Black leaders and members, and other
"constituency" groups. The Black Commentator wrote,

"Even as
unions struggle to respond to forces bent on their annihilation, they remain
deformed by racism – the same plague that has crippled the U.S. labor movement
at every stage in its history. Black workers, the most enthusiastic ‘joiners’
and activists, also face the most dire consequences of labor’s historical
weaknesses. Yet, too often, their white comrades – including those who proudly
consider themselves ‘progressives’ – seek ‘solutions’ to labor’s problems at
Black workers’ institutional expense."

Business Week
can hardly conceal their glee at the prospect of a split in the
federation.

"A splintered
labor movement would be a boon to Corporate America and the GOP. While unions
continue to shrink as a share of the U.S. workforce, they still sign up hundreds
of thousands of new members every year. Warring camps could undercut those
efforts if unions raid each other for members, as officials on both sides
threaten to do.

"A breakup
would also undermine labor's vaunted political machine. Its ability to bring
millions of union voters to the polls in recent elections has been one of
Sweeney's chief successes. Already the unhappy unions have demanded that the
AFL-CIO remove their members from its master list of names, which has been
crucial to labor's mammoth get-out-the-vote election drives."

It is true
that "labor’s vaunted political machine" has not produced much of worth–and will
not as long as it’s tied to the Democrats. But the dissidents are not talking
about putting this great potential power behind the Labor Party. Some of
them–especially the Carpenters and Teamsters–are quite open to trying their luck
with the Republicans.

Sometimes
splits around great divisions of principles are necessary and ultimately
beneficial. The unprincipled split threatened by the dissidents would make a bad
situation much worse. The labor movement needs to continue a great debate while
maintaining organizational unity at the present.

Go Chiefs!–And Take the Royals With You
Kansas City’s NFL franchise has enjoyed 43 consecutive sell-out crowds at
79,409-seat Arrowhead Stadium. Individual game tickets range from 59-80 dollars
and parking costs twenty bucks. This week the Hunt family showed their gratitude
by politely threatening to move to another town if serious public money isn’t
put into stadium improvements. County and city politicians have snapped to
attention and are working on various sales tax plans that would direct anywhere
from eighty to several hundred millions to ensuring we provide a place "our"
Chiefs will be proud to call home.

At least the
Chiefs usually put a competitive product on the field. Wal-Mart director and
former CEO David Glass has used a different business plan for KC’s baseball
franchise, the Royals. The Royals don’t sell out many games because they are on
target for the most losses in a season in American League history. Only a
handful of players are legitimate major-leaguers. One started the season in the
lowest rung of the minor leagues. But, after receiving his share of national TV
income, and luxury tax from rich clubs that spend a lot on free agents, Mr Glass
was already twelve million dollars ahead of his paltry pay roll–before selling a
single ticket. While not as pushy as his football colleagues Glass would like
some public millions for Kauffman Stadium as well.

If we get our
priorities straight, and are willing to tighten our belts a little–after all, do
we really need so many teachers, fire fighters, and those public health
clinics?–we should be able to provide ample luxury boxes and state of the art
video scoreboards the Hunts and Glasses so need and richly deserve.

Globalization Brings Jobs To Dixie
A combination of a weak dollar and weak unions has brought Korean car maker
Hyundai to the capital of Dixie. 2000 workers at a new plant in Montgomery,
Alabama will get a starting wage of 14.46 an hour, far below the $20-plus hourly
wages for comparable United Auto Workers members in Michigan. The Hyundai
workers also will have to contribute $14.54 every two weeks for substandard
health coverage, which is free to employees under UAW contracts. There is no
pension available to the Hyundai workforce; instead, employees have a 401(k)
plan.